The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
Manza Arthur
Supervisor of Records
June 12, 2025
SPR25/1209
Ann Marie Carpenter
Director of Human Resources, Diversity and Inclusion
Pittsfield Public Schools
269 First Street
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Dear Ms. Carpenter:
I have received the petition of Kenny Warren appealing the response of the Pittsfield
Public Schools (School) to a request for public records. See G. L. c. 66, § 10A; see also 950
C.M.R. 32.08(1). On April 10, 2025, Mr. Warren requested:
[1] [A] copy of the executed contract with Buckley Richardson & Gelinas (the
“Firm”)[;]
[2] [A] copy of the recommendations of the firm[;]
[3] [A] copy of the findings of the firm if they are different[;]
[4] [A] copy of the final report prepared by the firm[;]
[5] [A] copy of any invoices submitted pursuant to this contract[;]
[6] [A]ny documentation representing payment for services rendered under this
contract.
Previous Appeal
The requested records were the subject of a previous appeal. See SPR25/1209
Determination of the Supervisor of Records (May 15, 2025). In my May 15th determination, I
found that it was unclear which exemption of the Public Records Law the School cited in order
to redact the records it provided in response to Item 1 of the request. I additionally ordered the
School to provide this office with un-redacted copies of the records responsive to Item 4 of the
request for in camera review. On May 21, 2025, the School provided the records. I thank the
School for its cooperation.
The Public Records Law
The Public Records Law strongly favors disclosure by creating a presumption that all
governmental records are public records. G. L. c. 66, § 10A(d); 950 C.M.R. 32.03(4). “Public
One Ashburton Place, Room 1719, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • (617) 727-2832 • Fax: (617) 727-5914
sec.state.ma.us/pre • pre@sec.state.ma.us
Ann Marie Carpenter SPR25/1209
Page 2
June 12, 2025
records” is broadly defined to include all documentary materials or data, regardless of physical
form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency or
municipality of the Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption. G. L. c. 4,
§ 7(26).
It is the burden of the records custodian to demonstrate the application of an exemption in
order to withhold a requested record. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(iv); 950 C.M.R. 32.06(3); see also Dist.
Att’y for the Norfolk Dist. v. Flatley, 419 Mass. 507, 511 (1995) (custodian has the burden of
establishing the applicability of an exemption). To meet the specificity requirement a custodian
must not only cite an exemption, but must also state why the exemption applies to the withheld
or redacted portion of the responsive record.
If there are any fees associated with a response, a written good faith estimate must be
provided. G. L. c. 66, § 10(b)(viii); see also 950 C.M.R. 32.07(2). Once fees are paid, a records
custodian must provide the responsive records.
The School’s May 9th Response
In its previous May 9, 2025 response, regarding Item 4 of the request, the School
indicated that it withheld the responsive records and cited Exemption (c) of the Public Records
Law in support of its claim. Subsequently, the School provided additional information regarding
its claims under Exemption (c) in its May 20, 2025 correspondence accompanying the responsive
records provided for in camera review.
Exemption (c)
Exemption (c) permits the withholding of:
personnel and medical files or information and any other materials or data relating
to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; provided, however, that this subclause
shall not apply to records related to a law enforcement misconduct investigation.
G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c).
While statutorily exempting personnel information from the expansive definition of
public records, the Legislature did not explicitly define “personnel [file] or information.” G. L.
c. 4, § 7(26)(c). Judicial decisions advise that the term is neither rigid, nor exact, and that the
determination is case-specific. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corporation v. Chief of Police of
Worcester, 58 Mass App Ct 1, 5 (2003). The custodian’s classification of materials as “personnel
information” is not conclusive. Wakefield Teacher’s Association v. School Committee of
Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000). Instead, the nature or character of the documents, as
opposed to the documents’ label, is crucial to the analysis. See Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Corp., 436 Mass. at 386.
Ann Marie Carpenter SPR25/1209
Page 3
June 12, 2025
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Court) has refined the analysis to be
employed when considering the public record status of personnel records. The Court has held
that personnel information that is “useful in making employment decisions regarding an
employee” may be withheld pursuant to the first clause of exemption (c). Wakefield Teacher’s
Association, 431 Mass. at 798, quoting Oregonian Publ. Co.v. Portland Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 329
Or. 401 (1999). The Court further defined those records that may be withheld as personnel
information to include, “employment applications, employee work evaluations, disciplinary
documentation, and promotion, demotion, or termination information pertaining to a particular
employee.” Wakefield Teacher’s Association, 431 Mass. at 798.
In its previous May 9, 2025 response, under Exemption (c), the School asserted that the
records responsive to Item 4 of the request “are exempt from disclosure under M. G. L. c. 4, §
7(26)(c).” In support of its claim, the School stated that the responsive records “contain
extremely personal information regarding the persons mentioned within those records.”
Additionally, the School noted that, “the allegations, which are publicly known, are serious and
involve students and staff” and further stated, “[t]he investigations were conducted specifically
to determine if personnel action should or should not be taken.”
In its May 20, 2025 correspondence, the School further advised the following regarding
its claims under Exemption (c) for withholding the records responsive to Item 4 of the request:
The Pittsfield Public Schools assert that the records are exempt from disclosure
under M. G. L. c. 4, § 7(26)(c). . . . More specifically, the requested records are
personnel records and are therefore exempt from disclosure pursuant to the first
clause of exemption (c). See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388
Mass. 427, 434 (1983). The records at issue are investigative reports that were
prepared in order to determine if certain current and former employees had
engaged in misconduct. The Courts have found that a balancing test is not
required for these types of records. Instead, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court has found that public employers can withhold personnel information that is
“useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee.” See Wakefield
Teacher’s Association, 431 Mass. 792, 798 (2000); see also Colman M. Herman
v. City of Boston. et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395
at 6 (June 20, 2024). Here, the investigation reports were prepared specifically to
make employment decisions (i.e., to determine if personnel/disciplinary action
should or should not be taken). Indeed, investigative reports are the core type of
record that is used to make such employment decisions.
Redactions to these particular documents would not be suitable as the entire
document contains personnel information of a highly sensitive nature. Further, it
is known who the staff members and some of the students are due to the intense
publicity surrounding these cases and therefore redaction would not protect their
interests. It would also be possible in the community to ascertain the identities of
the student and adult witnesses even with redaction. If personnel records such as
these were to be released, it would have a severe chilling effect on witnesses
Ann Marie Carpenter SPR25/1209
Page 4
June 12, 2025
coming forward to discuss allegations such as these and would violate the privacy
rights of the employees involved. Further, the public would not obtain any
additional useful information beyond what is already publicly known (i.e., the
general nature of the allegations and whether the allegations were or were not
sustained).
In Camera Review
Upon an in camera review of the responsive records, and in conjunction with the
information provided in the School’s May 9th and May 20th responses, I find that the records
responsive to Item 4 of the request fall within the core categories of personnel information
described in Wakefield as useful in making employment decisions regarding an employee, and is
exempt under Exemption (c). See Wakefield, 431 Mass. at 798; Colman M. Herman v. City of
Boston, et. al., Suffolk Superior Court, Civil Action No. 2384CV2395 at 6 (June 20, 2024)
(“personnel files . . . shall be considered exempt under exemption (c) and Wakefield.”).
Consequently, I find that the School has met its burden to withhold the records responsive to
Item 4 of the request under Exemption (c).
Conclusion
Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. If Mr. Warren is not
satisfied with the resolution of this administrative appeal, please be advised that this office shares
jurisdiction with the Superior Court of the Commonwealth. See G. L. c. 66, §§ 10(b)(ix), 10A(c)
(pursuing administrative appeal does not limit availability of judicial remedies).
Sincerely,
Manza Arthur
Supervisor of Records
cc: Kenny Warren
